The High Court of Gujarat has partly allowed a criminal revision application filed by a husband, modifying a Family Court’s order that had more than doubled his maintenance obligations. While acknowledging the impact of inflation, the court held that maintenance should be befitting the status of the parties and the spouse’s capacity to pay, ensuring it does not become “excessive or extortionate.”
The ruling was delivered by Justice P. M. Raval, where the court reduced the total monthly maintenance from ₹14,000 to ₹12,000.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a judgment dated September 25, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar. In that proceeding, an application for enhancement under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was filed by the wife and child.
Initially, in 2019, the Family Court had granted maintenance of ₹2,500 to the wife and ₹4,000 to the child (total ₹6,500). However, in the 2024 order, the Family Court enhanced these amounts to ₹6,500 and ₹7,500 respectively, totaling ₹14,000 per month. The husband challenged this enhancement, arguing it was exorbitant and consumed more than 50% of his monthly income.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned advocate for the husband submitted that his assessed income, as per Income Tax Returns, was approximately ₹25,900 per month. It was argued that the trial court doubled the maintenance merely due to the passage of five years and inflation, without considering his actual financial capacity or the fact that over half of his income would be diverted to maintenance only.
Conversely, the advocate for the wife and child supported the Family Court’s order. It was contended that while the wife was earning when the earlier order was passed, she is now jobless. They further noted that the husband’s income had increased from ₹20,000 to approximately ₹26,000 over time, which they argued justified the enhancement.
Husband’s Financial Liabilities and Ailing Mother
A central point of the husband’s challenge was his pre-existing financial and familial responsibilities. He submitted that he has the responsibility of maintaining his ailing mother, who is aged about 76 years.
The husband contended that the Family Court’s decision to more than double the maintenance failed to account for the expenses required for his mother’s care and his own survival. He argued that with a monthly income of ₹25,900, an obligation to pay ₹14,000 in maintenance would leave him with less than 50% of his earnings to support himself and his mother, describing the amount as “quite exorbitant.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice P. M. Raval began by noting that the scope of revision is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460, the court stated that revisional jurisdiction should be invoked “only with a view to correct the manifest error.”
Examining the merits, the court noted that the husband’s income had only seen a marginal increase. Regarding the wife’s status, the court observed:
“The fact remains that the wife has studied upto M.Com. and the same can be one of the aspects while fixing the amount of maintenance though she is not earning.”
Citing the landmark judgment in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Others (AIR 1997 SC 3397), the High Court reiterated that maintenance must be determined based on the status of parties, their needs, and the husband’s capacity to pay after his own reasonable expenses and those he is obliged to maintain under the law. The court observed:
“The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband… At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”
The court further emphasized the husband’s responsibility toward his 76-year-old mother. It noted that in the income believed by the Family Court, it would be “difficult to survive by the husband by paying such an enhanced more than double maintenance amount.” The court found that the trial court doubled the amount “without giving any palpable reasons therefor.”
Decision of the Court
To “strike a balance in view of the admitted facts,” the High Court modified the quantum of maintenance. The court ordered:
- The maintenance for the wife is reduced from ₹6,500 to ₹5,500 per month.
- The maintenance for the child is reduced from ₹7,500 to ₹6,500 per month.
- The total monthly maintenance is fixed at ₹12,000, payable from the date of the application.
With these modifications, the revision application was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Case Details:
- Case Title: MBD vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Case Number: R/Criminal Revision Application (For Maintenance) No. 181 of 2025
- Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
- Date: March 03, 2026
